PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED versus K. L. KHARBANDA

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 02-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-. 
' 
2 8.C.l{. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
977 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED 
(P. B. 
v. 
K. L. KHARBANDA 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and 
K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
IndU81rial Dispute-Provision for computing benefit in 
terms of mmey-If applicable to m?netary benefit-Ba.nk Oterk 
made supervisor-Basic wages, computation of-All India In-
dustrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, para 292 (7)-In-
dustrl,al Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) s. 330 (2). 
The Sastri Award provided one scale of wages for clerks 
in all banks. It further provided for a special allowances 
to 
clerks who were assigned special posts requiring special skill. 
Paragraph 297 (7) of the Award provided for fixing the basic 
wage• of employees of a bank who joined after January 31,1951 
in the new scales prescribed. The respondent, who was a 
clerk in the appellant bank, was appointed a supervisor in 
1951,.' The appellant fixed his basic wages according to the 
scale payable to graduate clerks and gave him the special all-
oNance prescribed by the Sa•tri Award. 
The respondent 
made an application under s. 33C (2) of the Indu!lrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947, for computing in terms of money the bene-
fit to which he was entitled under the Sastri Award claiming 
that his basic wages should be fixed according to the scale 
prescribed by the Bink for supervisors. The appellant cont· 
ended thats. 33@ (2) was not applicable to monetary bene-
fits and that the respondent being a clerk his wages were 
rightly fixed. 
Held, thats. 33C (2) of the Act was 
applicable to com· 
putation of monetary benefits also to which a workman was 
entitled and the application was 
maintainable. The word 
"benefit" included both 'monetary benefit' as well as •non· 
monetary benefit' and there was no reason to exclude 'mone .. 
tary benefit' th'"efrom. 
The word used in s. 33C (2) 
was 
"computed" and not "converted" and 
compute means 
to 
calculate. 
The provision of s. 33C (2) was 
concerned purely 
with execution and there was no reason to hold that it app· 
lied to non-monetary benefits alone. 
Glaxo L~boratories (India) J,imited, Bombay v. Shri 
A. Y. Manjrokar, (1955) L.A. 0. 505. 
South Arco! Ekctricity Distribution Company Limi-
ted v. Elumilai, (195~) I.L.L.J. 624 and 
IHB --
1961 
"""i'° N a1;...l 
BCtl Limil1d 
•• 
X L. Kharb,,.d.o 
"··"* J . 
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. 
M.8. N.S; Tra"'flO"I•, Tiru<:hirapalli v. Rajaram (K) 
( 1960) I.L.L.J. 316, referred to. 
Held, further that the respondent was entitled to ba.ic 
salary according to the scale fixed supervison. The grades 
of supervisors were also ~d<s for 
workmen prevalent In the 
appellant bank. 
The Sastri Award provided one grade for 
all clerical workmen by whatever name they were known in 
the bank. 
In view of para 292 (7) of the Award basic wages 
of the respondent could not be reduced below what they would 
be under a point-to-point adjustment on the corresponding 
scale which he was drawing before the Sen Award, in this 
bank as a workm m. 
Pul\iah National Bank Ltd. v. Thtir Workmtn, C.A. 450. 
of 1959, Decided on D<cembcr 6,1960, referred to. 
Civu. APPF.LLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appe'\I 
No. 103 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from tbe judgment 
and order dated August 2,1960, of the Central Go-
vernment Labour Court at Delhi in L. C. A. No. SO 
of 1960. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for 
the appellant. 
S. T. Desai and Janardan Sharma, for the 
respondent. 
1962. February 2. The Judgment of the Court 
w&a delivered by 
WANCHOO, J.-Thi.s is an appeal by special 
lea.ve in an iBdustrial matter. The respondent 
Kharbanda is e. supervisor in the Punjab Nationel 
Bank Limited which is the appellant before us. The 
dispute relates to the fixation of his salary in accor. 
dance with the All India Industrial Tribune.I (Bank 
Disputes) A ward (hereinafter referred to as the 
Sastry award). The respondent made an applioe.• 
tion to the Central Labour Court, Delhi, under 
s. 33-0(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV 
of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act), and his caae 
wns that he was entitled to certain benefits oape.ble 
of being computed in terms of money under the 
Sastry Award, but the appellant had made a wrong 
. ,
... 
... 
• 
' 
2 s.c.n.. 
SUPREME OOUR'F REPORTS 
979 
calculation in fixing his basic salary. Therefore 
the respondent prayed that the benefit to which h~ 
was entitled by fixation of his basic salary correctly 
should be computed in terms of money and deter-
mined by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.